after 9/11 should the US have retaliated against the hijackers home countries with Nuclear Weapons?

Answer 1

No because of the nuclear winter that would have been caused, however instead of blacking out that fact that the attacks were done by, planned by, and financed by Saudi Arabia, something should have been done to Saudi Arabia. After the attacks the crown prince of saudi was quoted as saying that we brough it upon ourselves; therefore we should have immediatly removed all troops and support from Saudi Arabia, and made the corn and wheat we give them to feed their people cost the exact amount as a barrel of oil, and everytime oil went up food for them should have gone up.
Removing our troops would have allowed Al Quida to attack Saudi Arabia, which is what they really want. This would have also drawn Bin Laden into the open where we could have captured him.
They are not an ally, and should not be trusted.

Answer 2

No,a whole people can not be held responsible for the actions of individual evil doers.
Should the US have retaliated against Timothy Mc Veigh's home state whit nuclear weapons?
That's crazy!
Using nuclear weapons means genocide.That's a price no one should be prepared to pay unless the danger was even greater than that.It still would remain a moral dilemma for every sane individual.

Answer 3

NO. As much as you think this is a good idea its not. The launch of Nuclear weapons is catastrophic. The destruction would be unbelievable and the death of Innocent people would be too much. Plus there always lies the thought of retaliation from other countries to use there Nukes on us. We have the ability to stop some of the nukes from getting in. But not all of them.

Answer 4

True Holocaust would result. It shouldn't be forgotten that Pakistan, a Muslim country, has nuclear weapons.

All countries with such weapons would use, or be prepared to use, such weapons if only for a semblance of self preservation although how much of the world left whole could be debated.

There are many countries that are KNOWN to have such weapons. One of them is France. It is difficult think of France not getting into the middle of such a conflagration in the hopes of re-achieving its status as a great power..Doesn't matter if there is nothing left of the world, at least France would be as great as anyone else. All dead!

Answer 5

What a HOOT that would have been! Not only the home countries, but all the other countries that FUND terrorists. I'd start with France. We wouldn't need to bomb France though, all we'd have to do is "invade" Paris, march right in and take over. The French are NOT known for their fighting capabilities. Taking France would be easier than getting a Kennedy drunk.

Answer 6

whilst i replaced into attending the progressed NCO direction, we've been recommended that the US place on nuclear weapons is that we could by no skill use them as a extensive-unfold strike in a nuclear war, yet in basic terms as retaliation. And interior the form that we've been attacked with chemical or organic and organic weapons, we'd respond in basic terms with nuclear weapons. I doubt that place has replaced. in my opinion, i could extremely up the ante slightly and alter the 'first strike' coverage so we are able to act extremely of react. yet it somewhat is only my opinion; i need to be incorrect.

Answer 7

No Nukes, please! That would kill our entire planet! Without nukes, however, I still have to say no since it wasn't done by the individual countries but by a select group. Should we (the US) be killed for attacking other countries' citizens because our way of life was disturbed? Or, should our leaders make healthier decisions on how to handle this situation... like allowing the United Nations to do THEIR job? I personally prefer my last suggestion.

Answer 8

No, the use of nuclear weapons would destroy much of the planet, even beyond those countries hit by one. It gets in the air, the soil, the water, etc...

Answer 9

No, I think we should have done something even MORE effective, namely stopped driving except when ABsolutely necessary. Oil money has fueled all of this stupidity, in my view, and the sooner america's 100% energy-independent, the happier I'll be about the whole mess.

Answer 10

Yes & No

It would have ended much of the present day conflicts but it would have displayed the true hipocracy of the average american have caused too much world wide anguish for everyone...